Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose

[edit]

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

Guidelines

[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

[edit]

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.
Creator
[edit]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements
[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution
[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality
[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting
[edit]

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Value
[edit]

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

[edit]

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images

[edit]
Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 constructive, stable edits on Commons (excluding user and talk pages), other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

[edit]

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Good voting practices

[edit]
  1. Do not have an image moved to consensual review ("Discuss") unless someone else added a vote with which you disagree.
  2. If you think the image meets QI criteria, use "Promotion" right away.
  3. If you think the image does not meet QI criteria and the issues cannot be solved, use "Decline" right away.
  4. If instead you believe that the issues can be solved, leave a comment without changing the status (keep it as Nomination).
  5. Do not add new votes under already promoted or declined images if you agree with the decision. The bot checks the date of the last comment, so this only delays the result.
  6. If a comment raises an unresolved issue, promoting is generally considered impolite. Only promote if the issue is clearly minor, fixed, or incorrect - and say so briefly. If you’re not sure, add a comment (don't change status). Change to "Discuss" only once conflicting votes appear.

Grace period and promotion

[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

[edit]

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2025.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 2025.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

[edit]

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 15 2025 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

[edit]

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

[edit]

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 11:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

If you are not ready to Promote or Decline an image, you may leave a Comment instead.

If someone else has already promoted or declined an image and you disagree, you may cast an opposite voice or use Discuss — this will move the image to the Community Review section.

If you agree with a previous decision, there is no need to cast the same vote again, as doing so only delays the final closure of the nomination.

Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


December 15, 2025

[edit]

December 14, 2025

[edit]

December 13, 2025

[edit]

December 12, 2025

[edit]

December 11, 2025

[edit]

December 10, 2025

[edit]

December 9, 2025

[edit]

December 8, 2025

[edit]

December 7, 2025

[edit]

December 6, 2025

[edit]

December 5, 2025

[edit]

December 4, 2025

[edit]

December 3, 2025

[edit]

December 2, 2025

[edit]

December 1, 2025

[edit]

November 30, 2025

[edit]

Consensual review

[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".



File:Orthofoto_Zentralkrankenhaus_Bozen_2023_begradigt.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Orthophoto of Zentralkrankenhaus Bozen --Aciarium 00:03, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 01:22, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
    * Oppose Not taken by a Commons user per description. --Plozessor 04:43, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Mała_Wysoka_z_Rysów.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Východná Vysoká, view from Rysy --Gower 11:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 12:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Large parts of image are blurry, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 23:59, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова. --Sebring12Hrs 09:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Štrbské_pleso_Koliba_Patria_2022.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Štrbské pleso & Koliba Patria --Gower 11:02, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Igor123121 12:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Beautiful landscape, but nothing is sharp here, sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 00:01, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова. --Sebring12Hrs 09:05, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_Basking_activity_of_Caprona_ransonnettii_(R._Felder,_1868)_-_Golden_Angle_WLB_IMG_2111a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing Basking activity of Caprona ransonnettii (R. Felder, 1868) - Golden Angle --Sandipoutsider 10:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Borderline quality, but ok for me. --Красный 12:44, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
    significant  Level of detail too low --Gower 11:28, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Gower. --Sebring12Hrs 09:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Podzamcze_street,_view_to_W,_Nowy_Świat,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Podzamcze street, view to W, Nowy Świat, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 06:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Pangalau 07:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The image is lacking sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Zwierzyniecka_street,_view_to_E,_Nowy_Świat,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Zwierzyniecka street, view to E, Nowy Świat, Kraków, Poland --Igor123121 06:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:06, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The image is lacking sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Zygmunta_Krasińskiego_Avenue,_view_to_N,_Kraków,_Poland.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Zygmunta Krasińskiego Av, view to N, Kraków, Poland.jpg --Igor123121 06:48, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Pangalau 07:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose The image is lacking sharpness and detail. --Augustgeyler 14:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:San_Lorenzo_in_Panisperna_-_esterno.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination San Lorenzo in Panisperna - esterno (by SonyGM) --Sebring12Hrs 21:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose shadow covers almost half of the object --Gower 11:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
    I disagree, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 13:46, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Kleinbauernhaus_Oberweilbach.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Small farmhouse in Oberweilbach, heritage monument in need of restoration --Kritzolina 17:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The right side is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 19:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Also it's underexposed, and WB is not good. Sorry. --Екатерина Борисова 03:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
     Support Done.--Tobias ToMar Maier 18:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks Tobias ToMar Maier, perspective and light are ok now, but could you reduce the purple CAs on the lamp post please ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
 Comment CA removed.--Tobias ToMar Maier 10:26, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is a bit borderline, but there enough details to me. Good job ;) --Sebring12Hrs 11:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sebring12Hrs 11:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Helsingfors_central_November_2025_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Main entrace to Helsinki central station. --ArildV 12:42, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough at full view, sorry --Gower 14:09, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. --ArildV 14:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Overall good image. Good light capturing the evening-mood. Nice scene with that motion blurred person. The sharpness on the left is borderline but OK. The left crop is not ideal but OK. I think it can be seen as QI. --Augustgeyler 12:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Strong oppose Strong motion blur. --Sebring12Hrs 13:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Do you mean the whole image? --Augustgeyler 14:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Almost, to me, there is a failed focus combined with motion blur, look at the clock and lights of the tinsels. --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:17, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2023_Majlis_Ramah_Mesra_Belait_122.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Rolls-Royce Phantom Series I in Brunei. --Pangalau 05:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 07:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not taken by a Commons user (per description). --Plozessor 04:13, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --August (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Waltensburg-Vuorz._Panoramaweg._20-09-2025._(actm.)_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Waltensburg/Vuorz]] View of the mountain flanks above Waltensburg/Vuorz.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:14, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Nice, but check the WB. I think it's a bit too greenish or turquoise. --Milseburg 13:22, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Correction WB. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 18:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Difference is marginal. I suggest a stronger adjustment of the levels. --Milseburg 15:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New try, new luck? Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 17:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I've made a new upload as proposal to show, what I mean. Please revert and send it into QI.--Milseburg 15:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info: Thank you very much for your improved version. It didn't work well for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noisy and unrealistic textures in the background, look at the trees, there is not enough detail in the trees IMO. --Sebring12Hrs 13:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:SAR,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA45201).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Joint SAR demonstration by the German Army and German Navy at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 09:03, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sharp image. But composition is not QI: the subject is too small in frame. --Augustgeyler 00:41, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 17:31, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for editing. Now we have a better composition. But compared to other QIs of aircraft we now have relatively low detail due to the intense crop. Let's see what others think. --August (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 12:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Efremov_-_2025_-_Architectural_elements_of_the_facade_of_the_Khimik_House_of_Culture2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Efremov - 2025 - Architectural elements of the facade of the Khimik House of Culture --Юрий Д.К. 21:18, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. I love it. --Lmbuga 21:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good quality and beautiful mosaic, but, to my great regret, there's no FoP in Russia for modern art, so this image is at risk of being deleted. --Екатерина Борисова 03:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Architectural elements are covered by Russian FOP. This is not a mural or sculpture, it is facade of the building. Юрий Д.К. 09:06, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, unfortunately mosaics on facades and inside buildings are considered as works of art, not as architectural elements. For example, there's no FoP in Russia also for mosaics in the Moscow metro. If that wasn't the case, I would support your photo without any hesitation (такие снимки удаляют просто пачками, я это неоднократно видела, так что увы). -- Екатерина Борисова 03:12, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree that it is the mosaic on facade because this is facade itself :). Although, given the current practice on Commons, I would not be surprised if someone nominates it for deletion. Юрий Д.К. 11:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's not the whole facade, but a part of it :) I like your photo and I like this mosaic, but being a part of the Russian WLM team I saw hundreds of deletion requests for such kind of images. So I'm not really opposing this image, it's just friendly warning. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:39, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 19:22, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:18, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Moscow_-_2025_-_St._Basil's_Cathedral_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Basil's Cathedral from Middle Trade Rows --Юрий Д.К. 15:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pdanese 15:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left dome is so distorted that it doesn't just look ugly, but also stupid, if you'll excuse the expression. --Екатерина Борисова 03:47, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The left dome is so distorted that it doesn't just look ugly, but also stupid - ??? Here is real view from nearby point, if you see it, only slight distortion here. However, this photo has been taken from closer distance for the left dome and it appears larger. Of course, it will be some distortion due to perspective correction of such buildings, it is impossible to avoid. We can't ignore physics laws, sadly. Юрий Д.К. 09:57, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment And the real view shows us the left dome without such extreme distortion. I understand that panoramas are different from photos, but your link to panorama proves my point, while the link to the photo shows an equally ugly distorted temple. You've made many beautiful and realistic pictures of this magnificent temple (here is one of them for comparison) - so why download this terrible one? -- Екатерина Борисова (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment More precise location (but sadly, again, without PC). So, I completely disagree that it is terrible. Distortion here, but not strong. Юрий Д.К. 11:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You say that we have to respect the laws of physics — and I agree. That also means we cannot expect good results from perspective correction when starting from just any extremely low viewpoint. The best image is probably one that doesn’t need perspective correction at all (either because the shooting position was at the right height, or because we consciously accept converging lines and a frog’s-eye perspective). A good image is one that requires only minimal perspective correction. Here, however, the photo was taken from a very extreme angle, which made heavy perspective correction necessary. On top of that, there is noticeable lens distortion towards the edges. For these reasons, I agree with Ekaterina. --Augustgeyler 10:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that this is a very difficult angle to shot this building. But it has a right to be photographed even from here and uploaded to Commons, right? I agree there might be some lens distortion, but it's minor, IMHO. Юрий Д.К. 13:52, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I totally agree with you. It is a good image and it was good to take it. But not every image from every angle or in every situation can be QI. --Augustgeyler 00:09, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 13:39, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:15, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Riese_und_Mueller_Carrie,_VELO_2025,_Berlin_(P1047226).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Riese & Müller Carrie at VELOBerlin 2025 --MB-one 20:27, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Maybe "landscape" crop could be better? --Gower 15:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review. But the main subject (the cargo compartment) has a vertical alignement. So, I don't see how a landscape crop would work. --MB-one 13:00, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @MB-one: I thought about something like that: crop link --Gower 19:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the suggestion. --MB-one 17:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Igor123121 12:53, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Crop is borderline, it would be ok with Gower's suggestion. --Sebring12Hrs 14:24, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Changed crop. Thanks for the reviews. --MB-one 17:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. --Sebring12Hrs 19:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:05, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Dijon_-_Porte_Guilllaume_-_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dijon (Côte-d'Or, France) - William's gate --Benjism89 07:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syntaxys 07:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The actual shape of the arch is very much distorted by perspective correction. Compared to your other photo, it looks like some kind of caricature. --Екатерина Борисова 00:40, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I really don't understand how we can see a distorsion here. All perspective corrected images would be declined. --Sebring12Hrs 09:25, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photo in your link is simply taken from the front. And on the one that is nominated, the photographer is slightly to the side. This is almost a 3/4 view. --Sebring12Hrs 09:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it's probably a side view, but then why is the right pillar of the arch looks like it was taken directly from the front? I have nothing against neat PC, which is often needed, but here the result is very unnatural. -- Екатерина Борисова 04:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • This is a slightly side view : I'm in front of the right pillar, so yes, you can't see any of the two sides of the right pillar which is perfectly normal for something which has a square shape ... I chose this point of view because, as you can see at the bottom left of the picture, there is a large tourist information board in front of the gate. The other picture you mentioned was taken from the other side of the gate. --Benjism89 12:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I think the side view in many cases can be done so that a building or structure does not need so intensive PC. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:35, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • You have absolutely no idea about the laws of optics. Really! It is very annoying to repeatedly read the same misjudgement in the reviews of the same person. This image was taken with a 35 mm lens on a full-frame camera, which is a very moderate wide angle. If you shoot the subject in portrait format from this distance, you will probably not need to make any corrections at all. --Syntaxys 20:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Maybe I have no idea about photography overall. But I have every right to look at such photos as a viewer, and I also have the right to express my opinion, despite the fact that it may annoy someone. And yes, as a viewer, I don't like it when a realistic view of a building is sacrificed to verticals, and the building looks skewed. What's the point of straightening structures so much that the picture ceases to have anything to do with reality? Especially considering that photos for Commons should have not only aesthetic, but also educational value. That's my point and I will stand for it. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:50, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • It's really not in my mind to cut anyone's rights. But personal preferences and opinions are not a basis for a quality assessment process. This requires knowledge that is derived from generally accepted findings. The design and aesthetics of an image are certainly open to debate.
    From your statement, it can be concluded that an image of an architectural object with an uncorrected perspective has a higher educational value than the correct representation of the same object. Really? --Syntaxys 04:37, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ekaterina. --Augustgeyler 10:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Szczytna,_zespół_zamkowy,_park_(4).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Park in Szczytna 1 --Jacek Halicki 08:04, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romzig 18:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple fringes in the branches, ahd the shadow is too dark. It's not artistic playing with light and darkness, but just a dark shadow. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 00:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support CAs are here but very weak. I agree that the image may be brighter but still QI for me Юрий Д.К. 16:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Technically OK. But the composition is insufficient: essential parts are in dark shadow. --August (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Hohe_Strasse_19_in_Quedlinburg_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Hohe Straße 19 in Quedlinburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany. --Tournasol7 01:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment The windows on each floor are turned at a different angle, and so is the inscription. It looks very strange. --Екатерина Борисова 03:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 15:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good voting practices #6 (and yes, I'd like to hear other opinions). --Екатерина Борисова 02:56, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe the house has these imperfections, which is separate from photo quality. Good quality for me. Julian Lupyan 22:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment There're no these imperfections in some other images of this house from the same author (see the category), so I think the reason for the oddities I've mentioned is something else, probably a sloppy perspective correction. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:06, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Don't expect straight lines in mediaeval cities. We could talk about the blown-out facade of the house to the right, but IMO that is acceptable, the subject itself is very good here. --Plozessor 04:15, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor, very good --Gower 19:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support very good image Юрий Д.К. 17:19, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Gower 19:24, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Auto_2024,_Zurich_(PANA0274).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Presentation at Media Stage of Auto Zürich 2024 --MB-one 12:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Cropping: Too much space at the top, feet cut off --Aciarium 17:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped in for a more balanced composition. --MB-one 11:44, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed crop --MB-one 15:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose somewhat low resolution, colours look yellowish, no meaningful image description. --Smial 12:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • @Smial: ✓ Done Adressed all three issues. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 17:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Terrain_de_pétanque_d'Auberchicourt_(97469).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Terrain de pétanque d'Auberchicourt--JackyM59 19:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I suggest cloning out that lonely branch from the right --Gower 13:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done 16:9 cropping to remove the branch at the top right --JackyM59 18:32, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 22:46, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left part is leaning out. Looks like as if it needs to be rotated cw and afterwards some minor PC. --Augustgeyler 01:03, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 14:10, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_park_zdrojowy_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spa Park in Duszniki-Zdrój 1 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 09:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question Is it OK, to show these peoples faces? --Augustgeyler 11:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Question Did these people agree being photographed? --Augustgeyler 01:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In Spain, this photograph complies with the law. Lmbuga --Lmbuga 10:43, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  • But this is Poland. And there people need to be asked. --Augustgeyler 18:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  no response --Augustgeyler 00:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support The intention is to photograph a park, not people. But may be their faces should be blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 01:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In Poland, Article 81 of the Copyright Act requires consent for publishing the image of any identifiable person. The exception for “a person being an incidental part of a larger public scene” applies only when the person is truly marginal and not a meaningful element of the composition. In this drone photo, the two people in the foreground are clearly identifiable and are clear part of the composition. They are not an incidental detail. Under Polish law, this requires explicit consent, and Commons normally expects such consent to be documented. Therefore, without a documented permission, this photograph cannot be considered legally safe for Commons, and from a QI perspective the situation is not compatible with promotion.--Augustgeyler 10:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
@Augustgeyler: I blurred the faces --Jacek Halicki 07:44, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I am sorry to stay in opposition. Faces have been blurred (only slightly), but the original unblurred version remains fully accessible in the file history, so the privacy issue is not resolved. On Commons, identifiable private individuals should not be uploaded at all. Because the earlier version cannot be removed without deletion, the image cannot be promoted. --Augustgeyler 22:48, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment In general, I don't think images with blurred faces can be considered QI. It would have to be something very minor (barely noticeable and not affecting many areas of the photo). I don't have a clear or definitive opinion yet. --Lmbuga 16:55, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
You can ask any administrator to delete previous versions. I'm not going to do it without the author's permission--Lmbuga 16:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support As long as the picture has not been proposed for deletion, I will vote for the photo: I think it is good. I believe that the dispute over previous versions does not affect this image and should be settled elsewhere, whether it is QI or not. --Lmbuga 23:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment We can not promote images as QI, if they are not within the commons rules! --Augustgeyler 12:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  • We see the world differently. I'm sorry. I can't act based on what a user says. I need that user to take action. The guidelines are open to interpretation. In my opinion, there is no photo that does not follow the Commons rules if it is not proposed for deletion and deleted. What a user says is important, but... action must be taken, and even then, I may not act accordingly. At least I know I'm nobody and that I am imperfect..--Lmbuga 03:24, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't propose the photo for deletion. I hope you only propose that the previous edits be deleted. That hope shows that this photo can be voted on IMO. I do not vote for previous editions. You're not going to resolve that conflict here. If you care so much, take action. --Lmbuga 03:38, 15 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 10:39, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

File:2024_Duszniki-Zdrój,_park_zdrojowy_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spa Park in Duszniki-Zdrój 5 by User:Jacek Halicki--Boston9 09:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Significant distortion and lack of sharpness in the lower third --Aciarium 16:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 01:00, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per above.--Ermell 21:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Aciarium. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 01:45, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Waterfront_Viewpoint_Sign_at_Pike_Place_Market,_Seattle,_Washington,_2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Waterfront viewpoint sign at Pike Place Market, Seattle --Julian Lupyan 20:37, 6 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, composition --Aciarium 14:10, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. I believe the exposure is true to life, and if it were to be raised, the subject (the neon sign) would not be portrayed well. An elaborated critique for composition would be appreciated. Please discuss. --Julian Lupyan 22:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the composition and exposure exactly as it is. It catches the atmosphere of the place. --Plozessor 04:45, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor. --Smial 12:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed IMO, otherwise ok. --Sebring12Hrs 13:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:53, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

File:Statue_of_a_zouave_(Algiers).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of a zouave in St. Eugene Cemetery, Algiers --Bgag 03:50, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:55, 5 December 2025 (UTC
  •  Oppose The statue and its pedestal are blown out and lack details. Although it can be fixed. --Екатерина Борисова 03:54, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Overexposed . --Augustgeyler 18:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Info I have uploaded a new version. --Bgag 05:48, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Neutral  Thank you. OK now. Still a bit low on detail. --Augustgeyler 10:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Acceptable now IMO. -- Екатерина Борисова 03:17, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, unrealistic textures and borderline sharpness regarding the camera used. --Sebring12Hrs 18:42, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 01:47, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Sun 07 Dec → Mon 15 Dec
  • Mon 08 Dec → Tue 16 Dec
  • Tue 09 Dec → Wed 17 Dec
  • Wed 10 Dec → Thu 18 Dec
  • Thu 11 Dec → Fri 19 Dec
  • Fri 12 Dec → Sat 20 Dec
  • Sat 13 Dec → Sun 21 Dec
  • Sun 14 Dec → Mon 22 Dec
  • Mon 15 Dec → Tue 23 Dec